The first question that comes to mind is why you think instruments are fine. Where exactly do you find them authorized in the New Testament under the gospel of Christ?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think musical instruments are fine, but some you can see them act as if they want to be seen which takes away from worship. But I also see many singers act the same way (usually i notice them more often). Many churches have the instruments in a place not easily seen, which i think is a way to handle it if there are some disputes.
The first question that comes to mind is why you think instruments are fine. Where exactly do you find them authorized in the New Testament under the gospel of Christ?
And, pray tell, where do you find in the New Testament where instruments are prohibited?
The debate on whether to use musical instruments during worship service is the silliest argument Christians have ever come up with. Be done with it!
Crawfish in post #2 of this forum thread spells out the definitive answer to the argument.
The last Christian congregation that I worshiped with was non-instrumental. There was an organ up front, but was turned to the wall and not used. But in the rear of the auditorium was a computer that controlled an opaque projector that flashed song lyrics on the front wall. And a microphone was used up front and was attached to an audio amplifier at the rear that fed two speakers mounted on the side walls.
I did some quick research and I found no mention of projectors, computers, microphones, amplifiers or speakers in the New Testament. When an organ or piano or other musical instrument is supposedly banned by the New Testament, why weren't these other instruments banned also?
Satan is always busy trying to divide us and lead us to damnation. The instrument vs. no instrument argument is another one of his methods.
My suggestion is to use musical instruments if you so wish or don't use them. I'm sure God doesn't care one way or the other.
I stand by my description of the instrumental vs. non-instrumental argument: SILLY.
And your arugment, whatever it is, about priests of Judah and Levi is vacuous and beyond understanding by us mortals. And I don't see the connection between it and using musical instruments during worship.
Accompanying my singing with a piano aids me in my worship of the Lord. If I must reject a piano in worship, then I must reject a computer and an audio amplifier in worship.
The scripture that Crawfish quoted tells us to sing psalms. Some of those psalms we are told to sing tell us to use musical instruments in our worship. If you don't accept that as a command to use musical instruments during worship then you are admitting there is one Hell (pun intended) of a big contradiction in the scriptures. (As a reminder, the subject here is musical instruments, not sacrifices.)
Like I said: the whole argument is silly and not pertinent to the saving of our souls. Let's discuss more important issues...like why does most of mankind reject baptism when the New Testament in more than one place tells us it is needed for salvation?
Gotcha. The piano aids your singing. Really? Does it help you with the words like a songbook? Or, is it an addition to what God specified? Thinking back to Genesis 6, God specified gopherwood. Let's suppose Noah used gopherwood and oak. He said oak was an aid. Who would buy that story (borrowing from the thought of Proverbs 23:23)?
I don't think "hell" is to be taken lightly, or to be used flippantly. Gotcha. You sing all the Psalms, right? About burnt offerings, and animal sacrifices, right? Doesn't the thought occur that many of the thoughts of the Psalms are specific to things done under the law of Moses? I know you might not want to talk about animal sacrifices, but the Psalms do discuss them ... and you do sing the Psalms, right? Are you suggesting that you don't sing those Psalms that discuss animal sacrifices? Why not?
Now that is what I've been calling silly. Helps me with words? Helps me with the notes? Doesn't make any difference. Helps me with singing.
The death of Christ Jesus removed animal sacrifice from our to-do list. But his sacrifice had nothing to do with using musical instruments during worship.
Silly. I repeat, silly.
It is people like you...those who find sin where there is none...who mislead sinners seeking Christ.
We must do what God has told us to do and don't do what God has told us not to do. Can we agree upon that? If God has not told us to not do something and has not told us to do something, it isn't wrong or sinful to do it. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from using muscial instruments in worship. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from sitting on pews during worship. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from singing more than one verse of a hymn. I would go on with this list, but the list is infinite in length and I don't want to spend the rest of my life composing a partial list of what God has not prohibited us from doing.
That would be silly.
Now that is what I've been calling silly. Helps me with words? Helps me with the notes? Doesn't make any difference. Helps me with singing.
The death of Christ Jesus removed animal sacrifice from our to-do list. But his sacrifice had nothing to do with using musical instruments during worship.
Silly. I repeat, silly.
It is people like you...those who find sin where there is none...who mislead sinners seeking Christ.
We must do what God has told us to do and don't do what God has told us not to do. Can we agree upon that? If God has not told us to not do something and has not told us to do something, it isn't wrong or sinful to do it. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from using muscial instruments in worship. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from sitting on pews during worship. There is no prohibition in the scriptures from singing more than one verse of a hymn. I would go on with this list, but the list is infinite in length and I don't want to spend the rest of my life composing a partial list of what God has not prohibited us from doing.
That would be silly.
Instruments....
1. Were not used by the earliest Christians.
2. The earliest Christians told you WHY they did not use them, complete with Scriptural reference.
3. It was not simply a matter of musical taste, lack of talent, or preference with them. It was doctrinal.
4. The view was the standard accepted view for over 800 years and the standard view in most Protestant churches up until the early 1800's. I think you have to ask yourself why that is.
What is your source for this statement? I find nothing in the New Testament that says the early church did not use musical instruments.
Again, what is your source? I find nothing in the New Testament about musical instruments used during worship.
Prove it, please. What is your source? Or are you just making up all of this?
I've read that in the early 1800s some American congregations purchased organs and pianos for use during worship. Those congregations that could not afford to do so over time came up with a rationale for not having an organ or piano. That rationale, of course, was the newly found prohibition in the New Testament against using musical instruments during worship.
I'm 64 years old and was baptized into Christ in 1957 and during all of the subsequent years I have not found any prohibition or any argument for the prohibition in the New Testament of the use of musical instruments during worship.
If you can make a logical argument for banning the use of musical instruments during worship, I'm sure you can probably come up with a logical argument for banning baptism and for banning the observance of the Lord's Supper each Sunday.
Why can't we keep things simple? Christian doctrine is not difficult to determine from what is written in the New Testament nor is it difficult to understand. Our problems arise when we try to make it complicated and the only way we can make it complicated is to ADD to the Word of God.
Silly argument.
I am only 40, but I have yet to find any NT scripture approving or disapproving of the practice of infant baptism. Are you in approval of the practice? Or does the purpose of baptism somehow exclude infants?
Off-topic, but the NT speaks of entire households being baptized into Christ. Historically, this would have included all family members (including infants) and their servants. So there is strong evidence of infant/young child baptism, and there is no evidence that such children were again baptized in their adulthood.
I don't support infant baptism (and I'm a bit disturbed by how young some children are baptized these days), but the above seems to indicate that at least some infants and children were.
Sorry for the off-topic post. I've said everything about IM that I want to, so I really don't have much to add to this thread.
I apologize for interrupting your discussion and possibly for my naivety but I can't help think that Rom 14-15:7 might be in some way applicable to this discussion.
If your convinced that worshipping with instruments is a sin, then for you it is a sin, follow your conscience. If your convinced its not, then you have liberty. Both sides of the debate have honed their positions now for a 100 odd years. If you believe that you have any hope of somehow reconciling the issue then by all means have at it, you would do the church no end of good. If sometime in your discussion you think that your not going to get anywhere and the other side just doesn't get what your conscience says is the truth then maybe an attempt at loving acceptance might be the only answer. Rom 14:9 "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification."
DRA: Having had no contact with non-instrumental churches (there aren't many in Australia) do you mind if I ask the following questions?
Do I understand correctly that it is that your position that worship as described in the NT cannot have musical instruments, not that musical instruments are forbidden as such, just that if their used it isn't NT authorised worship? Do you accept that a church service can contain other things not directly mentioned in the NT as long as they edify the body? If a church held a instrument free worship time and then held a time of singing with music that others found edifying (even if for you it wouldn't be worship) would you have a problem? Could you feel free to attend (even if you wouldn't want to be a member)?
I sincerely don't understand what you are asking. What is meant by "little experience?" Do they not know how to sing without instruments? However, if they are reaching out to better understand the issue that separates brethren, then I suggest we sit down together and study the issue (2 Timothy 2:15). Whether this issue or another, the real difference is going to boil down to how we handle God's word. Take Romans 14. I have to wonder how broadly "we" are willing to apply the chapter. And, take Eph. 5:19. We know what it says. And, we know what's not prohibited. Therefore, is everything not prohibited, acceptable? If not, by what methodology do we use to decide what is? And, does that methodology apply to other passages, or is it limited to Eph. 5:19? Give it some thought.If an instrumental church decided to reach out to your church and decided to hold a non instruemental services and requested since they had little experience to request that your church led the worship would you assist them?
I have to disagree with this one. I don't think the instances above by necessity means infants were baptised. When viewed from my perspective of the purpose of baptism, children have no need of remission of sins so baptizing them is contrary to the purpose. I understand we disagree on this point.
What I think both of us agree on at a bare minimum, is that baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and our arising to walk in newness of life. This symbolism is lost on an infant and is not needed in the first place.
A closer examination of the passages involved show that in most passages, hearing and believing are also involved as well.
Acts 10:1 Now there was a man in Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort.
10:2 He was a devout, God-fearing man, as was all his household; he did many acts of charity for the people and prayed to God regularly.
Acts 16:29 Calling for lights, the jailer rushed in and fell down trembling at the feet of Paul and Silas.
16:30 Then he brought them outside and asked, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
16:31 They replied, Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.
16:32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him, along with all those who were in his house.
16:33 At that hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized right away.
16:34 The jailer brought them into his house and set food before them, and he rejoiced greatly that he had come to believe in God, together with his entire household.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the president of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard about it believed and were baptized.
Can an infant believe? If his "entire household" believed does that include infants? Can the words "entire household" be used and logically exclude infants? Apparently so.
I really think this issue will be easier to tackle after your discussion with DRA on baptism. Let me encourage you to go back to that discusion on Acts 2 and sort that out (either agreeing with him or not). I kind of get the sense (rightly or wrongly) that you believe baptism is important, but simply because it was commanded. I'm not sure you know why, or have thought that much about it.
In any event, it kind of reinforces my arguement that not all things are appropiate in all situations. I guess the worst thing that could happen to a baby is that he could get wet. But if the purpose of baptism is what I think it is, that's all he is. Wet.
I do see a problem with doing something man-made and saying it is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I suppose that could possibly be blasphemy.
JDIBe said:Please see the thread titled "A historical view of IM (for informational purposes only)" at the top of the page.
"Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Many will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?
Then I will tell them plainly, I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!
I humbly request that you please try to respect that some us have deep reservations with the practice just as we respect your viewpoint and try to talk to you in a civil manner.
If a man does silly things, but does not recognize them to be silly, but thinks they are serious, I suppose that somehow in your heart you could find a way to forgive him. But if a man does silly things and knows they are silly while doing them.......well.......What are we to think of that??
I read all of the quotations and the only reason given (that I could find) for not using musical instruments was because the Roman pagans used musical instruments in their worship. Not one referred to your argument about priests or any similar argument.
However, I don't believe anything outside of the Bible is sacred and is the Word of God. From my readings the Word of God does not prohibit using musical instruments during worship. And there is nothing in the scriptures to indicate that the first century Christians used or did not use musical instruments while singing. You've quoted the scripture instructing us to sing, but I noted that that scripture did not prohibit using musical instruments while singing. The commandment to sing is satisfied whether instruments are used or not.
Regarding infant baptism, Peter told the crowd to repent of their sins and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. I personally don't believe an infant can repent of its sins and I don't believe an infant has any sins.
The danger in "baptizing" infants (other than getting wet) is they will be told they have been baptized and as adults may never be baptized as Peter instructed...for the forgiveness of their sins. They will meet Christ unbaptized. And we know how they will be received by Christ because of what Christ Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23:
By the way, I have yet to hear of an infant being property baptized, i.e. immersed.
Calling this argument silly is giving my opinion, not attempting to show disrespect for your viewpoint. I'm just saying your viewpoint is silly.
Yes, you are making a big deal out of a frivolous point, but that would not bother me except for the fact that you apparently think it is part of church (Christ's church) doctrine (at the same level as baptism perchance?) that we MUST not use musical instruments during worship and that we will go to hell because we enjoy worshiping God to our utmost.
Many people think the overt non-use of musical instruments by some congregations is ridiculous. And it is a stumbling block that prevents them from finding Christ.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?